I'm going to give myself a 'B' ranking.

[oiuyt]

No, the current problem is "B-nothave" That's what Bugaboo is trying to fix!!!!

-B

[Inquartata]

Oh. I C....

[Ken Mondschein]

I was going to object to this as unethical (i.e., cheating), but then I remembered in today's world, the ends justify the means...

[Azrael]

Ken:

That is, I believe, all relative to whose 'end' we're talking about.

There's a certain lady epeeist being bruited about on fencingsucks.com who's 'end' I probably wouldn't mind having a shot at 'justifying'...

[azfencer]

Not to be too cynical but... I bet this could be done by bribing the division officer who submits new ratings to the usfa. They only ask for people and ratings earned, not for a list of the competitors. You could make up an event and I don't know if anyone would ever check. They might if all you ever reported for your division was D's and E's and suddenly sent in an A.

I'm not endorsing this!!!!! Just wondering. Hopefully division officers aren't that unethical!

[Pommel]

Ken's just still stressed out from the Armored combat a couple of weeks ago; and I can understand entirely why. Don't worry, we sport fencers aren't ALL bad, we just like to kid around. No angst borne derisions of contemporary society are neccessary thank you.

[edew]

It used to be that USFA was really diligent on handing out ratings for B's and A's. Now, they're equally diligent about handing out ratings for D's and C's, especially since a D is required to compete in NACs.

I just send them my complete result.

[MattyCam]

edew,

Probably because the new requirement for Div 1 is a D rating. More D's means more money, plus didn't they add another div2/3 nac?

matt

[Peach]

I think they started requiring the D because they had too *many* people in the Open NACs and couldn't handle the size. They do make money on these things but since they depend heavily on a large corps of quasi-volunteers to cope I don't think they can make the things much bigger without having everything fall apart.

[Inquartata]

Well, they ought to be careful what they ask for, then. If they make this big push for membership, so fencing has enough muscle to keep from being edged out of the Olympics, then I'd suggest that they have no room to complain about how that expanded membership entering tournaments is too much for their infrastructure.

As much as I sympathize with the amounts of work that referees, officials and administrators have to put in to run tournaments---and for a relative pittance, at that---I still believe that the foremost concern should be for the fencers, not the bureaucracy that's supposed to be serving their interests. Call me old-fashioned ( or something stronger if you like, I can take it! ).

As matters stand I'm not sure I'd really want a higher rating than a D. With a D you can fence in all three Division NAC's. I wish I could fence even more; the idea of being forced to fence less by a rating distresses me....

[Peach]

Yeah, I hate not being able to do the Div II/IIIs any more because now that I have a vague clue of what I'm doing, I could REALLY do well in them MOST of the time . . . er . . . oh, I guess that's the point, isn't it? <sigh>. Dern.